Back
2004 Supreme(All) 2542
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.B. Misra, J.
Smt. Rohini Srivastava - Appellant
Vs.
Director, Pension Directorate And Director Mudran Evam Lekhan Samagri - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 41074 of 2001
Decided On : 03-08-2004
For the Appellant : K.M. Misra and H.R. Misra
Headnote:
Family Pension - Entitlement of Second Wife - Uttar Pradesh Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961, Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 - 3, 7(3), 7(4) - The court discussed the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961 and Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, highlighting the entitlement of family pension to the widow or widower and the criteria for payment of family pension. The court emphasized the need for a generous interpretation of the rules to uphold the welfare of the widow and children, and the importance of considering the object and purpose of the statutes in interpreting their provisions. The court also referred to various legal principles and precedents to support its interpretation of the rules and the spirit of benevolent legislation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the second wife of a deceased government employee, sought to quash an order stopping the family pension granted to her on the ground that the first wife was alive. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without affording her an opportunity of hearing and that the government order bringing new aspects to the criteria for family pension was not protected by law. The court found that the impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and set it aside, entitling the petitioner to family pension as the legal widow of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order stopping the family pension was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and was not legally sustainable. The court emphasized the need for a generous interpretation of the rules to uphold the welfare of the widow and children, and set aside the impugned order, entitling the petitioner to family pension as the legal widow of the deceased.
Issues: The issues involved the entitlement of the second wife to family pension, the interpretation of the Uttar Pradesh Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961 and Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, and the legality of the impugned order stopping the family pension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order stopping the family pension was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and was not legally sustainable. The court emphasized the need for a generous interpretation of the rules to uphold the welfare of the widow and children, and set aside the impugned order, entitling the petitioner to family pension as the legal widow of the deceased.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the court set aside the impugned order, entitling the petitioner to family pension as the legal widow of the deceased.
R.B. Misra, J.
Heard Sri H.R. Misra learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel.
2. In this petition prayer has been made for quashing the impugned order dated 1.9.2001 passed by Director Pension Directorate U.P. Lucknow (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) whereby the family pension granted to the petitioner earlier on 22nd July, 1997 was stopped on the ground that the first wife was alive and during life time of first wife the second wife is not entitled for family pension. Therefore, alter granting family pension for about four years by order dated 1.9.2001 the family pension was stopped. (2) According to the petitioner her husband late Sri Shyam Mohan Srivastava a regular office Superintendent Grade-II in Government Printing and Stationary Press U.P., Allahabad had died on 26.11.1996. Late Shyam Mohan Srivastava was earlier married with Smt. Shail Kumari Venna who had no issue from the wedlock and had been residing separately and was deployed in some other government department where after retirement she was getting pensionary benefits and had no connection with late Sri Shyam Mohan Srivastava. However at her no objection late Sri Shyam Mohan Srivastava had married with Smt. Rohini Srivastava and there are three minor children including two sons and one daughter and Smt. Rohini Srivastava was living with Late Sri Shyam Mohan Srivastava till his death as his legally wedded wife with her children. After the death of Late Sri Shyam Mohan Srivastava the petitioner represented for getting family pension and on scrutiny of papers acknowledging her to be a widow of Late Sri Shyam Mohan Srivastava she was being paid family pension and the minor children were being taken care of. There are Uttar Pradesh Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961 (in short called as 'Rules 1961' hereinafter) as well as Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 (in short called as 'Retiral Benefit Rules, 1961" hereinafter). The above two files were trained by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India However in view of the G.O. dated 24th August, 1986 without affording the opportunity of hearing and disestablishing the status of the petititoner as widow the impugned order has been passed. According to the petitioner the G.O. dated 24.8.1966 whereby New Family Pension Scheme, 1965 was promulgated has indicated the criteria of payment of family pension to the widow or to the widower till the death or till remarriage whichever is earlier, but such conditions according to teamed counsel for the petitioner are only illustrative and not exhausted and the spirit of G.O. is for the welfare of the widow or widower, which has to be interpreted generously, with proper spirit so that the claimant widow may be given family pension. The relevant provisions of Scheme 1965 is given here as under:
3- mi;qZDr ;kstuk dk iz'kklu fuEufyf[kr izdkj ls gksxkA
¼d½ ifjokj ias'ku lsok esa jgrs gq;s ;k lsok fuo`fRr ds ckn e`R;q gksus ij ml n'kk esa vuqeU; (admissible)gksxh tc lsok fuo`fRr ds ckn e`R;q gksus dh n'kk esa ljdkjh deZpkjh e`R;q ds le; dksbZ izfrdkj(compensation)v'kDrrk(invalid) lsok gks fuo`fRr(retiring);k vf/ko"kZrk (superannuation)isU'ku ik jgk gks ;k ik jgk gksrk vkSj lsokdky esa e`R;q gks tkus dh n'kk esa ;fn mlus de ls de ,d o"kZ dh yxkrkj lsok ftlesa HkRrk jfgr NqV~Vh dh vof/k] M~;wVh ds :i esa u ekuk x;k fuyEcu rFkk 20 o"kZ dh vk;q ls igys dh xbZ lsok vof/k lfEefyr ugha gks] iwjh dj yh gksA
¼[k½ bl ;kstuk ds iz;kstu ds fy;s ^ifjokj* esa ljdkjh deZpkjh ds fuEufyf[kr lEcU/kh lfEefyr jgsaxs %
¼1½ iRuh@ifr
¼2½ vo;Ld iq=
¼3½ vfookfgr vo;Ld] iqf=;kWa]
fVIi.kh 1 % mi;qZDr ¼2½ vkSj ¼3½ esa lsok fuo`fRr ls igys oS/k :i ls xksn yh x;h lUrku Hkh lfEefyr gksxhA
fVIi.kh 2 % lsok fuo`fRr ds ckn fd;k x;k fookg bl ;kstuk ds iz;kstuksa ds fy;s ekU; ugha le>k tk;sxkA
¼x½ isU'ku fuEufyf[kr n'kkvksa esa miyC/k(admissible)gksxhA
¼1½ fo/kok@fonqj dh n'kk esa e`R;q ;k iqufoZokg] tks Hkh
